Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, not read-only) by disclosing the operation is a recoverable soft-delete, that deleting a table or ID header cascades to children, and that links to deleted trace targets are marked broken. It also describes a verification artifact (echoed itemId) not covered by any structured field. The 'recoverable soft-delete' vs destructiveHint=true is a clarification, not a contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then parameter constraints, with no filler. The trailing 'Prefer itemId anchoring' fragment reads slightly tacked-on, keeping it out of 5 territory, but every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and 3 well-documented params, the description supplies cascades, soft-delete recoverability, parameter-sourcing constraints, and a verification step. Missing only peripheral detail such as required permissions, which limits it to a 4.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds real meaning beyond it: atOrder must come from a read issued after the last insert because inserts renumber later rows, and itemId anchoring is preferred. It does not detail the itemId/documentId formats, but the schema already carries those.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete one block'), and the scope word 'one block' distinguishes it from the sibling traceable_doc_delete (whole document) and from traceable_block_update/write. An agent can tell what this does and roughly how it differs from siblings without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear usage context ('Prefer itemId anchoring,' soft-delete is recoverable) and a hard constraint on atOrder sourcing. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over traceable_block_update or traceable_doc_delete, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.